If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

So then it isn't that far fetched to think up the motives certain people may have for steering a country to war. It is blindingly obvious really when you think about it. If the state is loosing a shit tonne of money someone somewhere is receiving it all :/

Does anyone here know who supplied the chemical weapons in the first place?

It may be idealistic but the best way to stop these kind of things occurring would be to stop selling them weapons.

So then it isn't that far fetched to think up the motives certain people may have for steering a country to war.

Except no country lasts long working as a giveaway to the military-industrial complex: The state's first goal, after all, is to maintain the state. Again, it's less "grand overarching conspiracy" and more "short-sighted boneheadedness," and that's if you already assume that there's no such thing as a just war and no rational lead-up to conflict, when in American history there's very strong arguments for at least two of them.

Except you are powerless as Americans to do anything, because the American government has already been subverted by financial interests so painfully obviously that only the Americans can't recognize this.

The power of money is institionally and legally more powerful than any single vote in USA, and has been for too long. And these are your results. A power hungry and imperialistic nation that seeks political and economic control over other nations.

The corrupt political system of USA generates a corrupt US government, what a surprise.

I mean, your "democracy" is innately corrupt. The very fact that private companies and individuals can literally determine the outcome of a race through funding of parties with millions of dollars or through millions of dollars of advertising? And no American questions this so blatantly obvious subversion of democracy? Where is the demand to ban all these practices and put a stop to lobbying in USA? You guys were lobbied by an advertising agency to enter in the 1st Gulf War, and there is no change happening here, or even a demand for change, amazing!

The best course of action was to NOT fund terrorists organizations and supply them with weapons and prolong the war.

The righteous USA still think it has moral obligations or moral authority to choose the future of other sovereign nations when it can't even decide the fate of it's own country in a political deadlock that has no end in sight.

My response is that you take any source that promotes your point of view no matter its veracity, case in point this glorified blog with no source material that you now wave at us.

Actually I'm just glad you took the bait.

It is impossible to criticize US policy anyway, with some people already determined that life is simple and that America in the end is destined to do the right thing, or that they even trend towards doing the right thing...

Unfortunately that's patently false. It is too criminal to even suggest that US is only acting in their own interests and is acting only selfishly.

The American media loves to lie to itself that US is somehow intervening for the sake of Syrian people.

There is not ONE discussion about the US role in prolonging the war in Syria in US media. Not ONE outlet remembers to mention these facts, that US is literally funding and supplying weapons to the very organizations and mercenaries who killed their sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And people seriously suggest, like soldant and nalano, that USA has anyone else's interests, especially the Syrian people, in their hearts?

This is a war against Iran and Syria to help US allies of Saudi Arabia and Israel take over the ME. Political and economic control, nothing more.

And you guys don't even take that seriously despite the overarching plan of Wolfowitz and US generals, who have anounced the plan publicly several times.

The problem with US politics is that everyone in the country is in fucking denial about US motives. They LOVE to pretend that US goes to other countries to save them, despite all the evidence pointing otherwise. Every fucking news item on FOX or CNN or ABC or whatever fucking US propaganda network you pick, all they talk about is what help they want to give to the Syrian people.

USA helped fucking destroy a whole nation by funding terrorists and mercenaries by supplying them with weapons, and now you Nalano and Soldants, how can you be so blind to even IMPLY that USA is even talking about Syria to solve the crisis! Your government has a direct hand in the killing of hundreds of thousands Syrian citizens!!!! And you talk of chemical weapons deaths in the order of 1000 people as mattering MORE or being MORE morally corrupt! The USA must be the most morally bankrupt nation with the most morally bankrupt government in the world! How can you not give a shit that USA funded terrorism directly as they have done so many times?????

Please, don't flatter him, afaik he was just a desk job paperwork guy.

Heh! I just find it weird that he seems to know how to massage libertarian Americans better than Obama does. I guess the kleptocratic nature of ex-Soviet states' capitalist reconsolidation appeals to individualistic American libertarians ("temporarily embarrassed millionaires" as they are), so Putin has cache with them as the biggest face on that ongoing development.

I just don't grok how a person as apparently-savvy as Obama could do business in America's contemporary bastion of neoclassical economics without developing some sense for manipulating libertarian opinion. Hell, I'm even seeing more reticent old-school "conservative" New Englanders making nodding comments at Putin's op-ed.

I feel I'm missing something. If he was gonna pass the Syrian buck to Congress all along, why bother with seemingly-naive indeterminate saber-rattling at Syrian instability? Maybe he really is that naive, but maybe there's more to it.

He certainly knows how to find the right words to appeal to many parts of the diverse group of people opposed to yet another American military intervention in the Middle East. As for how credible President Putin, or Russia in general, is when it comes to these issues is a fair question - but at least this time I can agree with large parts of his argument.

It's also good to see him bring up the detrimental effect of American military interventions on attempts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Originally Posted by Anthile

Putin is obviously aiming for the Nobel peace prize.

Does anybody still want that?

"He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to
the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free". ~ Luke 4:18

I just don't grok how a person as apparently-savvy as Obama could do business in America's contemporary bastion of neoclassical economics without developing some sense for manipulating libertarian opinion.

Short answer is, American libertarians are only libertarian about a choice few topics, and the ones they're not liberal in categorically deny Obama's legitimacy.

Still, Putin spent half that letter whitewashing Russia's involvement in Syria and her casus belli against certain of her own citizens. Russia, above all else, is less committed to the cause of peace as she's committed to the cause of Russia.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Heh! I just find it weird that he seems to know how to massage libertarian Americans better than Obama does. I guess the kleptocratic nature of ex-Soviet states' capitalist reconsolidation appeals to individualistic American libertarians ("temporarily embarrassed millionaires" as they are), so Putin has cache with them as the biggest face on that ongoing development.

I just don't grok how a person as apparently-savvy as Obama could do business in America's contemporary bastion of neoclassical economics without developing some sense for manipulating libertarian opinion. Hell, I'm even seeing more reticent old-school "conservative" New Englanders making nodding comments at Putin's op-ed.

I feel I'm missing something. If he was gonna pass the Syrian buck to Congress all along, why bother with seemingly-naive indeterminate saber-rattling at Syrian instability? Maybe he really is that naive, but maybe there's more to it.

Honestly, this boils down to how Obama is still pretty inexperienced with respect to World, US, and Washington politics. While that may or may not be a good thing considering how fucked up Washington and the world media is, it hurts him on stuff like this.

Think about this: What were Obama's major political battles since most Americans knew he existed?

Campaigning: Not to over-simplify things, but his message of "change" and his status as "not an old white guy" REALLY helped a lot to get the less politically savvy to support him blindly. And as for the politically savvy: I like John McCain. Nobody on the planet liked his running mate. Neither candidate really had a plan. It wasn't a particularly hard battle to get people to consider Obama the lesser of two evils. And as for round 2: It would have been hard to get people to NOT consider Obama the lesser of two evils with how Romney and the Republicans were campaigning.

Birthers: Basically Obama just had to say "The fuck is wrong with you people?". And, he was smart enough to not immediately squash it so as to keep an active "debate" that he could easily win which covered up a lot of the stuff that was more questionable.

Health Care: Obama and the dems had the common sense angle. Even most rich Americans will probably agree that the healthcare system is screwed up. The disagreement is just on: Would "Obamacare" work, and is it a good solution? But the republicans decided to campaign on "The current system works, Obama is a foreigner!". And Obama's lack of experience was really shown in all of his blatantly exclusionary backroom meetings and how he approached it in general, basically saying "Yeah, rather than make concessions, fuck 'em. We can win in public opinion and votes". And, while effective and not unprecedented, it also caused problems down the line that are STILL being felt.

"Ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan": For better or for worse, he will go down in history as the guy who actually pulled the troops out. So another easy win.

Libya/Benghazi: Hilary fell on/was pushed on the sword for the major cock-ups, and the American People just didn't care about it for the most part. And, (un)fortunately, Romney didn't push correctly during the debates so it was relegated to "Crazy shit Republicans say" and "Everyone makes mistakes"

So, really, this is the first political fight Obama has been in where he is going against "the will of the people" and where he has a competent opponent. Putin has been doing this shit for decades, and often from a MUCH weaker position.

That's the thing. Obama has come across as VERY politically savvy, but mostly just because he has been going up against people who make Dubya look politically savvy. In practice: He is good at working a crowd, but he can't squeeze water from a stone. This is his first fight against a true master of the arena (Ninebreaker!).

Steam: Gundato
PSN: Gundato
If you want me on either service, I suggest PMing me here first to let me know who you are.

I am curious as to why Obama is so keen about having a go at Syria despite widespread opposition.
It can't be to garner votes like the Afghan war since it's seemingly just the Obama administration that wants to participate in another war while public opinion is adamantly against it. I doubt it's about the oil or helping the military industrial complex profiteer off of the conflict. Bringing down Assad and propping up fanatics in his place whose first move would be to escalate sectarian violence before training their cross-hairs over Israel.
The only plausible reason that I can think of is the US aiming to isolate Iran and setting up the stage for a future war with it. That would still mean putting a more hostile environment around Israel though.

Originally Posted by Nalano

Still, Putin spent half that letter whitewashing Russia's involvement in Syria and her casus belli against certain of her own citizens. Russia, above all else, is less committed to the cause of peace as she's committed to the cause of Russia.

Hence my "realpolitik" comment. To quote Henry Temple, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Short answer is, American libertarians are only libertarian about a choice few topics, and the ones they're not liberal in categorically deny Obama's legitimacy.

You're saying he's just not bothering with that demographic altogether? Probably...

Originally Posted by Nalano

Still, Putin spent half that letter whitewashing Russia's involvement in Syria and her casus belli against certain of her own citizens. Russia, above all else, is less committed to the cause of peace as she's committed to the cause of Russia.

Sure, but Obama doesn't seem more "peace > geopolitics" than Putin. It just happens that Putin seems more transparent because he appealed to our rising non-interventionism whereas Obama has this batshit angle that "the international community's credibility" is at stake if we don't fling conventional ordnance at indeterminate targets whenever chemical weapons are used.

You kinda need credibility in order to lose it. afaict it's actually his credibility that's at stake, not the community's. If Assad hits fight or flight I doubt he'd consider anybody's "red line" waffling, and it seems super-doubtful that the opposition is uniform enough to give a coherent shit. Those among them of an ideologically anti-American bent wouldn't even care if our cruise missiles blotted out the sun.

If Assad hits fight or flight I doubt he'd consider anybody's "red line" waffling, and it seems super-doubtful that the opposition is uniform enough to give a coherent shit. Those among them of an ideologically anti-American bent wouldn't even care if our cruise missiles blotted out the sun.

That pretty much everybody - Assad, the Syrian civilians, Syrian-Americans, Jordan, Israel, the militias, Russia, the Democrats, the Republicans - is demanding that we do or don't do something simultaneously, it's clearly up in the air no matter what. I suspect Obama will take this opportunity provided by Putin to choose a different tack, because whatever he is, he's not an ideological hardliner.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

As others have pointed out, these guys have ZERO credibility as far as selling intelligence or politics or interventionist policies to the world.

Syria is NOT a US issue.

It is a global and humanitarian issue. Unfortunately, not only did the US "tie himself into stupid red lines".... they have been directly responsible for prolonging this conflict by supplying weapons to rebels! This results in the death of many civilians because of a war fought in dense urban centers. And not a single American gives a shit about US role in prolonging this war!

The argument is treated like a 5th grade playground, because he said that, now he has to do something, to maintain consistency and credibility!???

Hell no! The credibility is already lost based on the fact that USA and CIA is prolonging this war by GIVING THE TERRORISTS WEAPONS.

What the hell did 9/11 teach Americans? You are literally funding and supplying weapons to the same fucking groups who killed 3000 people in New York 12 years and 1 day ago!

Say what you will about the Russians and Mr. Putin in particular. This reaching out is unprecedented. Surly our country and our leaders cannot ignore this gesture from the Russian government. We, at the very least, should meet this offer in sincerity and in the hope, that something good and lasting will come of the discussions between our two nations. The stakes are far too high to let this moment over take either one of our nations. Put aside mistrust and bad feeling for the moment, and try find and do something positive for the world. The killing needs to stop. We really can live in peace with each other if only we would really try.

Yea and part of this is NOT supplying weapons to terrorists!!!

Health Care: Obama and the dems had the common sense angle. Even most rich Americans will probably agree that the healthcare system is screwed up. The disagreement is just on: Would "Obamacare" work, and is it a good solution? But the republicans decided to campaign on "The current system works, Obama is a foreigner!". And Obama's lack of experience was really shown in all of his blatantly exclusionary backroom meetings and how he approached it in general, basically saying "Yeah, rather than make concessions, fuck 'em. We can win in public opinion and votes". And, while effective and not unprecedented, it also caused problems down the line that are STILL being felt.

The only thing that the health care debate proves in USA is this:

Democrats have zero capacity to properly sell the financial advantages of policy, and Republicans have zero sincerity about their role in politics or the welfare of the American people.

The policy that was put in place by Obama did, AFAIK, have many concessions.

Unfortunately, due to those concessions, it is a fragmented policy that is weaker because of it.

Depending on what side of the argument or on, purely relativist, you either think

A) Obama doesn't have a spine and is not motivated enough and is just a consensus seeker or

B) Obama is a communist.

The only truth behind it is that Democrats can't sell policy and the insincerity of Republicans defeats all policy changes, no matter if they may be good or bad for X person or the USA as a whole.

At the same time, theCIA has been delivering light machine-guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following Obama's decision to arm the rebels.The agency has also arranged for the Syrian opposition to receive anti-tank weaponry like rocket-propelled grenades through a third party, presumably one of the Gulf countries that has been arming the rebels, a senior U.S. intelligence official and two former intelligence officials said Thursday.They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified program publicly.

The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal first reported the lethal aid.

Top rebel commander Gen. Salim Idris, speaking for the Free Syrian Army, told National Public Radio on Thursday that rebels had received no such aid from the U.S. The CIA declined to comment.

The officials said the aid has been arriving for more than a month, much of it delivered through a third party, which could explain why the rebel commander Idris does not believe the U.S. directly delivered the aid. The officials said the aid is delivered to commanders who have been vetted by the CIA, and the path of the weaponry is tracked through trusted parties within the country — though eventually, once they're in the hands of fighters, the U.S. loses sight of where the weapons go.

Why is there no controversy over supplying weapons to terrorist organizations in ME?

The FSA supposedly has no weapons given to them, why? Because they are so damn fragmented. Who the hell is checking who is receiving these weapons?

You are funding and supporting terrorism as a nation while the anniversary of Sept 11 passes, and you guys funded those groups who committed the Sept 11 attacks with weapons and training by the CIA too!